Fluff vs. Lore?

crkrueger · May 20, 2019, 09:29:27 AM

How I've always seen it is...
Crunch = Mechanics
Fluff = Everything else

Lore is one kind of fluff.

So, all Lore is Fluff.
Not all Fluff is Lore.

But, that's the kind of argument I'd expect a TGD Sperglord to make. Never been a big fan of the term "fluff" meaning anything non-mechanical.

You could argue it means things "not important", so many things about a setting would not be Fluff.

Really though, it seems to mean "Stuff I don't find important", and so is absofuckinglutely useless as a term in all cases.

kythri · May 20, 2019, 10:26:56 AM

I don't believe fluff is unimportant, in general.

Is some fluff unimportant? Sure, it can be, but by no means is all of it.

Likewise, I don't see fluff as a derogatory term.

Toadmaster · May 20, 2019, 11:47:43 AM

I agree with the fluff / crunch (or core) divide, although I'm more likely to use rules rather than crunch. A games crunchiness is frequently used to describe the level of detail, low rules complexity = low crunch, highly detailed rules = high crunch. Fluff can be just as important as the rules, after all that is what you are most likely stealing when you want to run a setting under a different set of rules.

I can see how one could want to further divide fluff into categories with different levels of importance. My initial thought is that lore is just a highfalutin word for fluff.

Crawford Tillinghast · May 20, 2019, 03:18:05 PM

To me, fluff is flavor, while lore is clues.

Aragorn is descended from the kings of a kingdom destroyed 1400 years ago, and further descended from Elrond's half brother. (Fluff - flavorful, but not all that important).

Aragorn is the only heir to a kingdom destroyed 1400 years ago, and heir to another kingdom to the south (lore - the campaign involves putting a Lost Heir on his deserved throne).

An example from one of my earliest campaigns: "...blah blah blah the mines below the destroyed castle were the only known source of adamantium in the world..."
Players (in unison): There's very little treasure and the doors are impossible to bash open!"

My fault, not making it clear...

Armchair Gamer · May 20, 2019, 04:16:32 PM

So, "lore" is "goodtext", and fluff is "ungoodtext", sometimes even "plusungoodtext"?

Spinachcat · May 20, 2019, 05:10:49 PM

Lore makes it to the gametable. Fluff usually doesn't.

For instance, if all nobles in your setting have a common half-demon ancestor, that's lore if the demon taint is a setting aspect where nobles either succumb or battle their natures and that plays out across adventures and defines the background.

If its just 18 pages of bad fanfic, that's fluff.

Winterblight · May 20, 2019, 05:34:57 PM

Fluff can be good or bad. It can just be pointless padding (or at least it can appear that way to those that don't like it), or it can bring something unique to the game or at least the product. An example of fluff that I think was done well and was unique at the time (or to the games I was familiar with) was the Street Samurai for shadowrun. The little shadow talk sections discussing the merits of each weapon in the catalogue really helped bring the book to life.

Shasarak · May 21, 2019, 12:29:40 AM

Quote from: Reckall;1088638I found the reference: It was something The Pundit mentioned in passing while charting a brief story of TSR's "book fever". To him, books were the fluff, and soaked up the energies needed to publish quality supplements (the lore).

I don't know if I agree or not. I have read some books, back in the day, some were absolutely dire but others, like "Elfshadow" by Elaine Cunningham, were full of lore bits and story ideas. Also it is always refreshing and creatively stimulating to see people and places "in motion, living their lives" and not only as a picture or a paragraph on as page,

I dont know exactly what Pundit was ranting about with DnD books but you can not blame them for sinking TSR.

Theory of Games · May 21, 2019, 11:51:39 PM

Quote from: Reckall;1088592Until today, to me "fluff" and "lore" were the same thing in a RPG: the part that fleshes out the world/universe of your game - giving you more options for your characters and the DM, and feel them more "grounded" in the specific milieu (should you like it, of course).

Now I was watching a video by The RPGPundit (the one about the idea of "belonging" or not to a community, IIRC - the first one in his "Rants" playlist on YouTube) and he does seem to refer to the two things as different concepts. Is it so? Opinions?

Sorry if I kept this short, but I am really under the weather

Almost same to me, whether I'm running or playing.

But to players fluff can be lore and lore fluff: a kingdom can have cool lore but to some players everything unrelated to where their PC can get a drink is fluffy.

spon · May 22, 2019, 08:01:37 AM

In WFB, fluffy is the opposite of beardy!

I suspect that the terms Lore and Fluff stand at opposite ends of a spectrum. Fluff is usually obvious and adds a bit of character to an otherwise bland description, but usually has no more than a minor effect on play ("My dwarf sports iron rings in his beard") and can be made up on the spot if you want. Lore can have a massive effect but be secret until the PCs discover it through play - the fact that Dwarves from the Assassin's guild all wear iron rings in their beards is lore (known only to the GM, initially). Lore requires a bit more thought and is usually in the purview of the GM.